Paul,
You may be right. Which one is more idiomatic?
Thanks,
-Elijah
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Elijah Zupancic <eli...@zupancic.name> wrote:
>> Thanks for your comments Nail.
>>
>> I think that I've come around to see your point after sleeping on it.
>> What do you think about this:
>>
>> Context.java - would be defined as so:
>>
>> public interface Context<K extends Object, V extends Object> extends Map<K,
>> V>
>
> Isn't that identical to?
> public interface Context<K, V> extends Map<K, V>
>
>> Then ContextBase.java would be defined like so:
>>
>> public class ContextBase extends ConcurrentHashMap<String, Object>
>> implements Context<String, Object> {
>
> Paul
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
